Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

Gas prices bust budgets for poor!

Notices
Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Gas prices bust budgets for poor!

Old 06-05-07, 04:16 PM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
acroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas Suburbpopolis
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
Personally, I have a real problem with how Diet Coke makes me FAT. I drink it all the time, and can't get rid of the last 10lbs!

j/k , though identifying Causality when it comes to race & economic background may be a fool's errand, due to the politically & emotionally explosive nature of the beast

I honestly lean towards the belief that there is no excuse, no reason, for an able-bodied person to be poor. I know first-hand in my and my peer's jobs: companies have a hard time attacting and keeping good mid-paid people ($12-17/hr). All they really need to do is be reliable, just show up: no special skills needed! Yet the job market must be really good, cause they get bored after a few weeks, quit showing up, don't bother to call in... and get on "unemployment" till it runs out.

I don't give a tiny little rat's rear what your color is, where you used to live, what you watch on tv, what kind of accent you speak with, who you vote for; all I want is for you to show up on time and drive the dang forklift safely. In other words: to do the job you're getting paid for!

We have an epidemic of Laziness in this country. And a scarsity of personal responsibility, imho.
acroy is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 04:20 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
acroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas Suburbpopolis
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by vulpes
Those holding the high ground – predominantly white and middle/upper class – could choose to go or stay. Those living in the lower areas were flooded out or drowned. Evacuation plans counted on being able to drive away from danger; but what percentage of New Orleans’ predominantly African-American underclass owned cars?
It's proven: when disaster strikes, the poor suffer the most.
What is your idea for a solution?
acroy is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 04:31 PM
  #28  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by acroy

I honestly lean towards the belief that there is no excuse, no reason, for an able-bodied person to be poor. I know first-hand in my and my peer's jobs: companies have a hard time attacting and keeping good mid-paid people ($12-17/hr). All they really need to do is be reliable, just show up: no special skills needed! Yet the job market must be really good, cause they get bored after a few weeks, quit showing up, don't bother to call in... and get on "unemployment" till it runs out.

I don't give a tiny little rat's rear what your color is, where you used to live, what you watch on tv, what kind of accent you speak with, who you vote for; all I want is for you to show up on time and drive the dang forklift safely. In other words: to do the job you're getting paid for!

We have an epidemic of Laziness in this country. And a scarsity of personal responsibility, imho.
Then, I think you need to pull your head out of the sand and get a broader perspective. If it were that easy to get out of poverty, there wouldn't be any poor to begin with. You can start with these and give us a book report on Monday.

Joyce Foundation. Welfare-to-Work: What Have We Learned?. (April 24, 2002) https://www.joycefdn.org/welrept

Lappé, Frances Moore and Rachel Schurman. “The Population Puzzle, The solution is found in addressing the impoverishment of families and the imbalance of power that perpetuates it.” In Context #21. (Spring 1989)

Ruff, Allen. "Neoliberalism, The New Social Darwinism, and New Orleans." Monthly Review. (8 September 2005)

US Conference of Mayors' Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness (2004, 2005) www.usmayors.org
vulpes is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 04:46 PM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
acroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas Suburbpopolis
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by vulpes
Then, I think you need to pull your head out of the sand and get a broader perspective. If it were that easy to get out of poverty, there wouldn't be any poor to begin with.
Sorry, but my personal experience disproves it.
We have a glut of jobs, not enough people to fill them. A job requires work, and no matter what, there's some folks who would rather be taken care of at a bare minimum level than go to that extreme.
I am sure there are exceptions to every rule. But they are exceptions, not the rule.
I commute through the small poor area of this town every day. my schedule is sporadic: sometimes i go home at 2pm, sometimes 10pm. No matter what, if the weather is nice, there are a lot of obviously able-bodied people lounging around, not looking for work.
My cleaning crew has a terrible time retaining people, apaprently for a lot of the $7/hr crowd, 15hrs a week is just too much. Some of these folks are 30ish, able, guys living with their parents, nothing better to do than watch tv.
Maybe I have been poisoned. But so far my personal experiences have re-enforced the notion that no matter how cynical I become, i can't keep up.
Don't get me wrong, I wish all these people well, I just resent that most plans attempting to help the poor require me to help pay for it....
acroy is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 04:51 PM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by acroy
Well my friend, thus far you have called fellow forum members & their opinions asinine, weird, stupid, unreasonable, accused them of using rhetorical arguments, and being full of Bull S**t.

I would suggest toning down a notch. I am assuming that you are here, and posting, because you care. The rest of us are here, and posting, bacause we care. So that's out of the way: we all care. Our opinions and ideas on the issues at hand are different - that's what makes a forum fun and educational. Please treat us with some respect and etiquette. Thanks.

What are your ideas? You did mention "collective effort (government)".
Is government your answer?
Because, as a conservative Liberatarian, I would suggest that to err is human: to really scr*w things up requires a Government
I look forward to your reply.
Cheers
I quoted your happy and free comment, and told you I don't care, because the message was the same- 'Hey, I get by and I don't let things get me down. Maybe ya'll just ain't livin' right. Come on down to the crik with me and lissen to th' bullfrogs.' Something like that, right? I don't care how happy you are, what does that have to do with anything?

And now this. I was waiting for this. 'Well if you're so smart, what's your idea, smart guy?' I just love this. Man, I can't even pretend to care about this line of inquiry. Call me a jerk or arrogant or whatever, but "Is government your answer?" is the sort of question I shake my head at just imagining the miles of assumptions packed into it. Plus I know it's not really a question but more of a setup on your part to bemusedly trot out stuff I've probably heard 1,000 times before. I suppose "is government you answer" makes sense as a question to you because you probably have a pat answer and a self-contained ideological explanation, again, probably stuff I've heard 1,000 times before. I don't have any answer to that question because I think it's a ridiculous question, it's a question only someone with a pat, ideological framework would care to answer.

You could narrow it down and ask me, say, what could the government do to change the situation for the people in the article in a way they couldn't do themselves?' To that I'd repeat what I've repeated several times here: communities are shaped by local government, local government is people. Where houses are built, where apartments are built, where x-type businesses go, where y-type businesses go, where and what public services are offered, etc., etc. From local zoning committees to federal guidelines, communities are shaped by government- and mostly on a local level.

I can't speak for someone I don't know or a place I don't know, nor can I assert that all problems can be addressed, obviously. The simple fact is the local government has most control over what can go where. More often than not, the local government simply cedes control to whomever promises them the highest tax receipts. In many cases this means a community ends up looking like it would if developers were calling the shots anyway because... developers are calling the shots. If a business park is 50 miles outside of town, if a Walmart 20 miles off the expressway has run out all the local businesses, and all the overcrowded apartment buildings are clustered in one part of town it's because that's what the wealthy interests wanted and that's what they were given. The local government could direct the growth of their city so it works best for the least among them, and I'm sure they do sometimes, some places, but for the most part most considerations are are made for the pursuit of profit.

The poor and powerless are subject to these decisions. They feel it the most when a community is allowed to be designed simply to maximize corporate profit (and therefore tax receipts). It's the local government who allows, or doesn't allow, this to happen.
__________________
fun facts: Psychopaths have trouble understanding abstract concepts.
"Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria."
TimJ is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 05:04 PM
  #31  
Senior Member
 
acroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dallas Suburbpopolis
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by TimJ
I quoted your happy and free comment, and told you I don't care, because the message was the same- 'Hey, I get by and I don't let things get me down. Maybe ya'll just ain't livin' right. Come on down to the crik with me and lissen to th' bullfrogs.' Something like that, right? I don't care how happy you are, what does that have to do with anything?

And now this. I was waiting for this. 'Well if you're so smart, what's your idea, smart guy?' I just love this. Man, I can't even pretend to care about this line of inquiry. Call me a jerk or arrogant or whatever, but "Is government your answer?" is the sort of question I shake my head at just imagining the miles of assumptions packed into it. Plus I know it's not really a question but more of a setup on your part to bemusedly trot out stuff I've probably heard 1,000 times before. I suppose "is government you answer" makes sense as a question to you because you probably have a pat answer and a self-contained ideological explanation, again, probably stuff I've heard 1,000 times before. I don't have any answer to that question because I think it's a ridiculous question, it's a question only someone with a pat, ideological framework would care to answer.

You could narrow it down and ask me, say, what could the government do to change the situation for the people in the article in a way they couldn't do themselves?' To that I'd repeat what I've repeated several times here: communities are shaped by local government, local government is people. Where houses are built, where apartments are built, where x-type businesses go, where y-type businesses go, where and what public services are offered, etc., etc. From local zoning committees to federal guidelines, communities are shaped by government- and mostly on a local level.

I can't speak for someone I don't know or a place I don't know, nor can I assert that all problems can be addressed, obviously. The simple fact is the local government has most control over what can go where. More often than not, the local government simply cedes control to whomever promises them the highest tax receipts. In many cases this means a community ends up looking like it would if developers were calling the shots anyway because... developers are calling the shots. If a business park is 50 miles outside of town, if a Walmart 20 miles off the expressway has run out all the local businesses, and all the overcrowded apartment buildings are clustered in one part of town it's because that's what the wealthy interests wanted and that's what they were given. The local government could direct the growth of their city so it works best for the least among them, and I'm sure they do sometimes, some places, but for the most part most considerations are are made for the pursuit of profit.

The poor and powerless are subject to these decisions. They feel it the most when a community is allowed to be designed simply to maximize corporate profit (and therefore tax receipts). It's the local government who allows, or doesn't allow, this to happen.
Well sir, I guess I'm sorry you take offense at my being happy. It is a decision, it is an effort, it is a state of mind, I suggest you try it, you might like it.

I asked for your ideas becuase you obviously have strong opinions about what's wrong, I wondered if you have strong opinions about the fix. And you did mention government..... by name, no less.

Have a good evening, and to close with a local colloquilaism, bless yer heart

Cheers
acroy is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 05:06 PM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TimJ
The poor and powerless are subject to these decisions. They feel it the most when a community is allowed to be designed simply to maximize corporate profit (and therefore tax receipts). It's the local government who allows, or doesn't allow, this to happen.
And in the final analysis, government, whether local, state, or federal, is owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate interests. On the federal level, David Sirota, as former chief spokesman for Democrats on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, has had ample opportunity to observe this process first hand.

"No longer does the private-profit motive compete in the legislative process with public good; profit now owns the process, and the middle class is left to the vultures [not to mention the poor].

Industry no longer needs to lobby hard for regulatory rollbacks, because many of its own lobbyists have been appointed federal regulators. Congress openly admits that business writes many of the most important pieces of legislation. The White House slaps an official seal on memos from corporate executives and labels them “presidential policy initiatives.” The vice president is permitted to own shares of stock in a company for which he coordinates government contracts. And the Oval Office is occupied by a man whose major life experience was not public service but money-losing business deals (that somehow seemed to just make him richer and richer). In short, the government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America."

The same kind of thing happens at the state and local level, too. Our only democratic choice is to vote for someone to represent us and our interests in Congress. But “our interests” always seem to turn out to be the interests of the rich and powerful. When we have the opportunity to vote on issues directly, they are referendums written by those same congressmen and their ilk that decide mainly which interest gets an economic advantage over another.
vulpes is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 05:31 PM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by acroy
Sorry, but my personal experience disproves it.
We have a glut of jobs, not enough people to fill them. A job requires work, and no matter what, there's some folks who would rather be taken care of at a bare minimum level than go to that extreme.
I am sure there are exceptions to every rule. But they are exceptions, not the rule.
I commute through the small poor area of this town every day. my schedule is sporadic: sometimes i go home at 2pm, sometimes 10pm. No matter what, if the weather is nice, there are a lot of obviously able-bodied people lounging around, not looking for work.
My cleaning crew has a terrible time retaining people, apaprently for a lot of the $7/hr crowd, 15hrs a week is just too much. Some of these folks are 30ish, able, guys living with their parents, nothing better to do than watch tv.
Maybe I have been poisoned. But so far my personal experiences have re-enforced the notion that no matter how cynical I become, i can't keep up.
Don't get me wrong, I wish all these people well, I just resent that most plans attempting to help the poor require me to help pay for it....

Yes. Your incredibly small, tightly focused view of the world is really all you need to inform all your decisions and all your knowledge. What you see, through your one pair of eyes, is far more informative than anything you could ever read. You're seriously self-absorbed. Lost of people are. You might see it when you see some single person driving a hummer but you sure don't see it when you look in the mirror.

Unfortunately for the world, and fortunate for guys like you who want to think everything is a consequence of personal will, societies are alive. They breathe and grow and change over time, and the character of societies is shaped by many factors but for liberal democracies, I'd say it's mostly shared experience and the influence (or lack thereof) of wealth. We have gone through so many ebbs and flows in this country but the bedrock has always been a liberal society of shared destinies. We fought the civil war because seccession went against both. We have been quite egalitarian and quite economically amoral, but for the most part we've always fought back to a place of shared destiny.

Until fairly recently. See it's unfortunate that societies are alive for the worst off because sometimes they can turn into real idiotic jerks. You have no idea, no concept of the context behind the black experience here in the US so you see some black dudes (saying you don't care what color a person is means you're talking about blacks or mexicans- every time) hanging out doing nothing, in your self-obsessed worldview you say to yourself "proof!". Me, well, I probably see a shiftless, lazy dude too, but I know that dude didn't fall from the sky and I know his situation, his view on the world, his shiftless and laziness, isn't exactly of his own making. Sure, he owns responsibility to himself and he should/could pull himself up, but... see I know there's millions upon billions of conditions and consequences and realities out there that people are living under right now that I will never even be able to understand, and knowing how government works, knowing how money flows, knowing my history, I know problems can become institutional. I know problems can become like a cancer and move through communities and time. I know I'm a product of nature and nurture and so don't really see a hero in the mirror simply because I'm not lazy and shiftless.

I know endemic, systemic problems can persist, through no real fault of any one person or group of people caught in that situation, but guys like you don't understand that, so when a society turns into a jerk and abandons all pretense to shared destiny and shared experience, the reality only reinforces your conviction that you're just as right as anyone else, and the only guy you need to rely on is you. I used to think that way. Used to think everything outside of me was just another agenda trying to worm it's way in. Then I wised the hell up.

I just resent that most plans attempting to help the poor require me to help pay for it
Of course you do. You're small-minded and have no regard for the maintenence of soceity, don't understand how a person better off, 100 miles away, benefits you in the least.
__________________
fun facts: Psychopaths have trouble understanding abstract concepts.
"Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria."
TimJ is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 05:42 PM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by acroy
I asked for your ideas becuase you obviously have strong opinions about what's wrong, I wondered if you have strong opinions about the fix. And you did mention government..... by name, no less.
You didn't read my reply.

Originally Posted by acroy
Well sir, I guess I'm sorry you take offense at my being happy. It is a decision, it is an effort, it is a state of mind, I suggest you try it, you might like it.
So you take my concern for the fate of others as a sign of unhappiness? Do you equate your happiness with your lack of concern? Can I be a happy person and still feel the way I do about the subjects at hand? This is interesting, you say essentially that poor people are poor because they're lazy and/or stupid, poverty is a choice, etc., and you say it with a smile and a wink and a hop in your step because you're so happy, and you see me as unhappy... Why?

Oh- concern is a state of unhappiness, isn't it? So do you maintain your regressive, ignorant worldview as a means to remain happy? I'd looooove to know.
__________________
fun facts: Psychopaths have trouble understanding abstract concepts.
"Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria."
TimJ is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 07:08 PM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 758

Bikes: 2002 Dahon Boardwalk 1, 2003 Sun EZ-Sport Limited, 2011 TerraTrike Path 8, 2018 Gazelle Arroyo C8 HMB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I'm poor, and have a 50 mile one way commute to my job. I stayed at my job because of college (I was going to a college close to my job... will be picking up my associate's degree next week, however ) and the fact that I like what I do.

If I could go completely car-free, I could move to near my work. However, as I said, I'd have to go COMPLETELY car-free, to get rid of insurance and all of that. And, once I would go car-free, there's no turning back - once you've had no car insurance for more than 30 days, you might as well be a triple-DUI driver starting back up, with how the insurance companies **** you.

And, getting a job close to where I'm living now? Great. Except everything within safe biking distance (that is, avoiding roads that are high traffic, high speed, AND redneck infested) is... pumping gas, bagging groceries, or flipping burgers.
bhtooefr is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 07:20 PM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
kc9eog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: decatur, illinois
Posts: 93

Bikes: Trek 1.1, Electra Ticino 7D

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I will not be satisfied until myself and TimJ are in broad agreement about this issue...that being said, where is the common ground? I am quite "liberal", as a matter of fact my sympathy lies with the poor and repressed. I would never think that seeing people sit on their porch means that they are living on the dole; also the system seems to be designed to keep a large portion of people in low wage, low skill jobs. There is much more to being poor than laziness, many hard working people are severly disadvantaged and rarely are they starting from a position of strength in their lives which would allow them to get ahead. It would be unimaginably difficult to be a single mother with three kids and a high school education, trying to wait tables and go to night school. I do not believe that the reason people are poor is they simply do not want to work.
That being said, some people screw up! I work in one of the best manufacturing jobs in central Illinois and am paid pretty well...and yet we have people fired for missing too many days, being late, doing drugs, just making life more difficult for themselves and their families. Not everyone who is bad off got that way due a corrupt system. Some people make things hard on themselves. The specific examples set-up by the OP are not people trying to work in San Francisco who can't afford $500,000 houses and have to live 60-70 miles from work. They live in relatively inexpensive parts of the country with plenty of housing and plenty of low paying jobs all around them.
That last sentence is important. You stated (paraphrasing here) that it is insulting to people with low paying jobs that maybe they should just get a job closer to work. Why?? The person who drove 66 miles to a job paying $7.25 an hour, how is that a failure of local government to insure adequate housing or adequate decent jobs? There is housing closer to her work; there are jobs closer to her home, right? Why shouldn't she have to move or get a different job if she can't afford to get to work now? By she I mean the specific people in the OP, not the entire class of working poor.
Many people are compelled by circumstances into working or living in less than optimal situations, but the specific examples in the original post do not on the surface appear to be a case of that. Do you see something different here, TimJ? All I see are a couple people doing foolish things.
kc9eog is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 07:34 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 462

Bikes: 2006 Specialized S-Works Tricross

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bhtooefr
And, once I would go car-free, there's no turning back - once you've had no car insurance for more than 30 days, you might as well be a triple-DUI driver starting back up, with how the insurance companies **** you.
I disagree. This issue came up in a thread awhile back. You will pay a slightly elevated premium for 6 - 12 months compared to what you would have paid had you maintained insurance all along. Just a month or 2 of not having to pay any insurance at all will put you ahead.

Most people who have had a gap in insurance either had some violation such as DUI that has prevented them from driving or they just elected to drive without insurance for awhile. Insurance companies will charge obligingly for the hazards these people present.

P.S. - Congrats on the degree!
Slow Train is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 07:48 PM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
kc9eog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: decatur, illinois
Posts: 93

Bikes: Trek 1.1, Electra Ticino 7D

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think after re-reading the OP that I see a crucial part of TimJ's arguement, and I must say I agree wholeheartedly: People are not inherently stupid for driving cars! The implication some on this board make is flawed, this premise that one should live close to work so they can ride a bike. The infrastructure is not set-up for it just yet, though it probably should be. While I must say it is foolish from my perspective to work far from home maybe some other people gain more from it than they lose. I can't see how the people in the OP might, but what do I know?
kc9eog is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 08:10 PM
  #39  
Fat Guy in Bike Shorts!
 
manual_overide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 630

Bikes: Specialized Allez

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by acroy
I just resent that most plans attempting to help the poor require me to help pay for it....
Originally Posted by TimJ
Of course you do. You're small-minded and have no regard for the maintenence of soceity, don't understand how a person better off, 100 miles away, benefits you in the least.
I don't think that's quite what acroy meant. I too resent being forced at gunpoint to pay for things I might not agree with. Yes, gunpoint. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come and make you. Ask Al Capone about that one. Anyway, I'd like to choose for myself which charities get my donations. If there is something that I don't agree with, but the government gives it my tax money, it's irritating to no end. I don't mind donating money or time to charity, but I resent being REQUIRED to. That's what acroy was getting at, I think.

In the OP story, yes, it is completely those peoples' faults that they are in that situation. They budget fuel last as "whatever's leftover goes to gas and stuff". If gas shoots up unexpectedly, then sure they have a valid gripe, but everyone's known that gas is going up and up. If either one of those women have car problems, they are screwed. The lady who is making 7 or 8 bucks an hour and driving 68 miles one way is the craziest one. She could make that much anywhere within walking distance, yet she would have much more money on hand. No, it's not all because she isn't driving 140 miles every day, although that would help a lot, it's because she could work 2 more hours every day instead of sitting in the car. Just some rough math here:
Maybe she fills the car every 3 days, which would give her around 420 mi. to a tank (not unreasonable if you mostly do highway) @ somewhere close to $35 or $40 per tank, so about $80 per week in just gas.
2 more hours per week @ $8 per hour is $80 per week pre-tax. (assuming a 5 day work week) So if she could park the car and pick up those extra 2 hours, that's maybe $120 per week in her pocket after taxes and misc. driving for other stuff (or don't park the car, you don't use much gas driving a mile or so every day). That's $6200 per year. In her pocket. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't mind an extra $6200 per year after taxes.
manual_overide is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 08:39 PM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
maddyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Posts: 3,944

Bikes: KHS steel SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Have to agree with accroy, before I retired 8-21-02. My buisness had jobs, with benefits paying $19-$22/hr loading cargo. Easy work, not heavy cargo, just show up, and lift some light weight stuff. We absolutely could not fill the jobs. People would should up, work for a couple weeks and then disappear. In northern Ky. if you are able-bodied and you are poor, you are likely very stupid and lazy. $45,000 a year for an easy job in low cost of living Ky. would not keep people working.
maddyfish is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 08:43 PM
  #41  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by TimJ
The idea that anyone with budget problems or car problems can just get a job closer to home or move closer to a job is asinine and insulting and I suspect a lot of people here buy into it because it makes them feel superior

That is just asinine. Those places are just out there for the taking, right? Anyone can pack up and move to a city with affordable housing, adequate mass transit, and all that other great stuff, right? It's so damn easy, everyone who now lives in a city that doesn't provide these things could move to a community just like that, right? Or no, not everyone, just the poor people, is that right? There's a whole bunch of these communities out there and it would be so freaking simple for some poor shmuck to move to one, get an affordable home and get a decent job, right?
You look at these folks, most are making Starbucks money after they pay their transportation costs. The days of cheap motoring are coming to an end and the poor will not be able to afford extenstive motorized transport to low paying jobs.

You did not offer a solution to the high cost but were critical of mine. Do you think the poor should continue to stay in those low paying jobs while spending half of their pay on fuel? Do you hope they find better paying jobs? What is your solution?

The real solution will require moving or getting a higher paying job that can absorb the high cost of motor transport. Unfortunately, the poor are in their situation because they are unskilled and this group is growing. They are going to be effected the most by the rising cost of fuel and it will change our nation as a whole.
Dahon.Steve is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 08:44 PM
  #42  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 758

Bikes: 2002 Dahon Boardwalk 1, 2003 Sun EZ-Sport Limited, 2011 TerraTrike Path 8, 2018 Gazelle Arroyo C8 HMB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Hell, $19-22/hr WITH BENEFITS for LIGHT cargo? Damn. Now I want to move to Northern Kentucky.
bhtooefr is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 09:04 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by acroy
Well my friend, thus far you have called fellow forum members & their opinions asinine, weird, stupid, unreasonable, accused them of using rhetorical arguments, and being full of Bull S**t.
Agreed.

My post was not ment to attack the poor. The individual has hijacked my thread and hurled insults while offering no real solutions. Maybe he really believes the poor are doomed to live with costly motorized transport the rest of their lives.

I happen to believe there are solutions and it can be hard or easy. It depends on the circumstances.
Dahon.Steve is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 09:29 PM
  #44  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by TimJ
If only everyone would just have the willpower to make the choices they need to make to be where they want to be, there wouldn't be any problems. Poverty and powerlessness are a choice.
I don't know if problems in general will disappear, but the women in the article will have to make some hard decisions in the very near future. You see, I don't believe the price of their monthly fuel costs are going down next year. They are paying $300.00 dollars a month but it will be $400.00 and eventually $500.00 dollars consuming all their descretionary income.

In the future, low paying jobs in the burbs may become high paying fields that covers the fuel costs. It's also possible these jobs may disappear entirely.
Dahon.Steve is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 09:45 PM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,937

Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by bhtooefr
I'm poor, and have a 50 mile one way commute to my job. I stayed at my job because of college (I was going to a college close to my job... will be picking up my associate's degree next week, however ) and the fact that I like what I do.

If I could go completely car-free, I could move to near my work. However, as I said, I'd have to go COMPLETELY car-free, to get rid of insurance and all of that. And, once I would go car-free, there's no turning back - once you've had no car insurance for more than 30 days, you might as well be a triple-DUI driver starting back up, with how the insurance companies **** you.

And, getting a job close to where I'm living now? Great. Except everything within safe biking distance (that is, avoiding roads that are high traffic, high speed, AND redneck infested) is... pumping gas, bagging groceries, or flipping burgers.
Actually you can greatly reduce your insurance cost, keep your insurance active, and still be car free. This was told to me, by an insurance broker, and they would know. In my case, the car I had could not be driven any longer, and I could not afford to replace it at the time. Would work just as well, with an old junker bought for $50, it does not need to be operational and does not need to have licence plates. You can tell the insurance people your going to repair it, but that it can't be driven at the moment, you don't need collision or liability insurance, just comprehensive, and set the deductible as high as they will let you. The insurance, will probably cost you $50 a year, if you decide you want to drive again in a couple of years, buy an operational vehicle, and update your insurance, scrap the old one. You can always leave the old one in your parking space, with a canvas cover over it, so nobody knows it's actually just rusty junk.

If you decide you like being car free, then just cancel the insurance, and scrap the car. I think in the next 10 years or so, insurance companies will add some car free policy products, like coverage only in a borrowed or rented car, or a policy where they charge you $25/yr to keep your policy on the books, but with no actual coverage. Some smart insurance executive, will come up with this one, if your reading this, and your an insurance executive, PM me, and I'll tell you where to send the check
Wogster is offline  
Old 06-05-07, 10:12 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by manual_overide
In the OP story, yes, it is completely those peoples' faults that they are in that situation. They budget fuel last as "whatever's leftover goes to gas and stuff". If gas shoots up unexpectedly, then sure they have a valid gripe, but everyone's known that gas is going up and up. If either one of those women have car problems, they are screwed. The lady who is making 7 or 8 bucks an hour and driving 68 miles one way is the craziest one. She could make that much anywhere within walking distance, yet she would have much more money on hand. No, it's not all because she isn't driving 140 miles every day, although that would help a lot, it's because she could work 2 more hours every day instead of sitting in the car. Just some rough math here:
Maybe she fills the car every 3 days, which would give her around 420 mi. to a tank (not unreasonable if you mostly do highway) @ somewhere close to $35 or $40 per tank, so about $80 per week in just gas.
2 more hours per week @ $8 per hour is $80 per week pre-tax. (assuming a 5 day work week) So if she could park the car and pick up those extra 2 hours, that's maybe $120 per week in her pocket after taxes and misc. driving for other stuff (or don't park the car, you don't use much gas driving a mile or so every day). That's $6200 per year. In her pocket. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't mind an extra $6200 per year after taxes.

You make a good point.

The article in USA Today was extreme and the individuals were interviewed because it probably made interesting reading. I suspect the majority of the poor would never put themselves into such situations. However, many Americans classified as lower middle class could very well become impoverished should the price of fuel continue to rise. It is the aveage wage earner who is next.
Dahon.Steve is offline  
Old 06-06-07, 06:39 AM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
maddyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Posts: 3,944

Bikes: KHS steel SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bhtooefr
Hell, $19-22/hr WITH BENEFITS for LIGHT cargo? Damn. Now I want to move to Northern Kentucky.
Please do, my partner still runs the buisness, and calls me often to fill in when one of his slugs, er employees, skips town.
maddyfish is offline  
Old 06-06-07, 07:35 AM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
kc9eog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: decatur, illinois
Posts: 93

Bikes: Trek 1.1, Electra Ticino 7D

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I hear stories where I work, they will call something like 125 people who have submitted a resume, and only 12 will pass the drug test. The three who came to my department, two quit within the first week. This is a good paying union job with benefits.
kc9eog is offline  
Old 06-06-07, 08:39 AM
  #49  
Thread Killer
 
evblazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Marfan Syndrome-Clyde-DFW, TX
Posts: 1,845

Bikes: Fuji Touring Xtracycle, Merlin Road, Bacchetta Giro 26 (Sold), Challenge Hurricane, Cruzbike Sofrider

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by maddyfish
Have to agree with accroy, before I retired 8-21-02. My buisness had jobs, with benefits paying $19-$22/hr loading cargo. Easy work, not heavy cargo, just show up, and lift some light weight stuff. We absolutely could not fill the jobs.
Do they have an depot north of DFW Texas? If I can bike commute that would make make it compare well to a $20-$23 job that I'd have to drive to
Sadly can't move myself see my wife has her dream job 1.4 miles from our house. Right now I'm ok but my company is going to more then double my commute in a few months and I may have to buy a @#$*()@# vehicle to drive it.
4 hours round trip to commute by bike, if I could physically do it, vrs 1.5 hours max by motorized highway capable transportations is 12.5 hours a week of free time. Even after 3 hours of exercise at a gym or riding my bike around my little town that gives me 9 hours. 9 hours is like a day off of work or over 11 weeks of vacation a year! If only I could sustain close to or over 20mph for over an hour on a loaded touring bike, right now I'm averaging 14.5

My wife bicycle commutes so moving closer to where my work is going, and all the work is, would put her probably back in a car and more then double our housing expenses. I've been looking for 3+ years for a job closer to home and no luck unless I want a 70%+ cut in pay or have special skills that I can't get without years of advanced degrees or training. Now if it were a 7%-30% cut I'd do it tommorow.
evblazer is offline  
Old 06-06-07, 08:44 AM
  #50  
Velocipedic Practitioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 488

Bikes: Specialized Sirrus, Bianchi Volpe, Trek 5000, Santana Arriva tandem, Pashley Sovereign, among others

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by maddyfish
I think you're allowing your anti-suburb predjudice to color your feeling on this article.
Surely Misti Davidson can find a job for $7.25 an hour a whole lot less than 66 miles from her house.
Ester Guzman is only about 7-10 miles from downtown Trenton N.J. Surley there is a job there for $11/hour. These people are stupid for having a job paying so little, so far from home.

Believe it or not the answer to everyone's problems is not to move into a big city. I'm sure Ester Guzman could move to Camden, N.J. to be bike/walk close to a job, but like many big cities, she would likely get *****/robbed/murdered before realizing the benefits.
Could it be your anti-big city prejudice is coloring your feeling? I know lots of people that live in big cities that haven't been *****/robbed/murdered and a number of surbanites that have had their houses burgled. I would also venture that Ester Guzman is more likely to die in a suburban traffic crash than my big city friends are to be murdered. Then again, I don't know anyone in Camden, N.J.

However, I agree that the answer to everyone's problems is not simply to move to a big city. When I relocated for my new job, I researched where to live and found a wonderful small town with everything I need within biking distance. Before purchasing a home there I made sure there was good, dependable public transit to get me to my office about 25 miles away. My unlimited use bus pass costs a good deal less than what others say they are spending on gasoline, not to mention parking in the city. (Here is where I have to admit to taking perverted pleasure in hearing my neighbors complain about gas prices.)

But.....I am fully prepared to move to the city should we lose the public transportation. But based on the ridership, I figure that to be highly unlikely.
PurpleK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.